Shipyard defenders challenge closure threat by Hagel

There is no punch behind a threat made earlier this week by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel to close military facilities without congressional approval, say military experts.

Comment

By Deborah McDermott

seacoastonline.com

By Deborah McDermott

Posted Mar. 2, 2014 at 2:00 AM

By Deborah McDermott
Posted Mar. 2, 2014 at 2:00 AM

» Social News

There is no punch behind a threat made earlier this week by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel to close military facilities without congressional approval, say military experts.

In fact, the law Hagel cited in a Feb. 24 speech apparently has not been used to close domestic facilities and likely never will because of a key qualifier — the Pentagon has to notify Congress two months beforehand.

"The waiting period provides opportunities for opponents to scuttle the closure. It's ironic, because the law Secretary Hagel cites has prevented the Department of Defense from closing bases," said Stacie Pettyjohn, a political scientist for the Rand Corporation, a nonprofit research organization, who specializes in the Base Realignment and Closure process.

Members of the Maine and New Hampshire congressional delegations said this week they are concerned that Secretary Hagel would even raise the specter of circumventing Congress. And none see a BRAC on the horizon any time soon, until and unless the Pentagon has provided them with much more information.

They referenced the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, which staved off closure in a 2005 BRAC round, in interviews with the Herald. But they indicated that issues with the Pentagon are far more encompassing than any one facility.

In a speech Monday, Hagel said he was again asking for a BRAC process, as he had in the previous two years. "If Congress continues to block these requests, even as they slash the overall budget, we will have to consider every tool at our disposal to reduce infrastructure."

Pettyjohn nearly chuckled at the thought of the law to which Hagel was referencing. "It's actually sort of funny. In reality, when it passed in 1977, it completely stopped base closures for over a decade, which is why Congress turned to the BRAC process."

Retired Navy Capt. Brian Buzzell, whose firm was hired by the Pentagon to assist in the 2005 BRAC process, agrees.

"I am 99.9 percent sure the DOD has never been able to close a military facility under that legislation. It's too damned hard," he said. "What Hagel was outlining in his speech is a very simplistic response to a very complicated process."

Besides the law and the BRAC process, there are no other means for closing domestic installations, both Buzzell and Pettyjohn said.

Buzzell said that doesn't mean Hagel's argument has no merit. The Pentagon said in 2013 that it had about 20 percent excess capacity after the 2005 BRAC round.

"We're reducing troops. The missions are going away, but the facilities that hosted those missions are staying behind," he said.

Pettyjohn was not unsympathetic, either.

"I do think he's saying that there are a number of inefficiencies where the DOD continues to spend money because Congress is not allowing them to make rational decisions," she said. "They're getting less resources but are not able to make the changes and cuts that they see as most prudent."

But Maine and New Hampshire members of Congress say the Pentagon has a long way to go to convince them that it has taken prudent steps.

For one, the Department of Defense can on its own, without congressional permission, close military facilities in places other than the United States. But what has it done to accomplish those closures, asked Sens. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., and Susan Collins and Angus King of Maine.

Ayotte, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., and King are all members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Collins is a former member of the committee.

Collins said the Pentagon has still not released to the Senate Armed Services Committee its European consolidation review promised a year ago.

"We need to have an overview of what they're proposing overseas before we look domestically," said Ayotte.

"The sense of the committee is, don't talk to us about a BRAC until you show us what you've done about foreign bases," said King.

Ayotte and Collins said they also want to hear further from Hagel about exactly what he meant by saying he will "consider every tool at our disposal."

"What authority do they believe they have and how do they believe they can exercise it?" said Ayotte. "What is he talking about?"

Collins said, in her view, "it is entirely inappropriate to essentially threaten to proceed with base closures without congressional approval.

"It is a pattern of overreach of this administration that I have found very troubling," she said of President Barack Obama's assertions that he will circumvent Congress. "It is disrespectful and unwise to provoke Congress in this way."

All three referenced a 2012 Government Accountability Office report indicating that the cost to implement the 2005 BRAC was 53 percent higher than projected by the Pentagon. That was largely due to the fact that new buildings had to be added to existing facilities to accommodate those who were transferred after their installation was closed.

King said when the Brunswick Naval Air Station closed after the 2005 BRAC, "they basically moved the whole function to Jacksonville, Fla., where they had to build new facilities."

Although the same GAO report did indicate long-term savings starting after 2015, King said he is "skeptical" that the savings are ever going to catch up with the upfront costs.

Finally, said Collins, the Department of Defense "is the only department in the federal government that cannot provide us with an audit-ready financial statement. I want to see the department has its house in order first."